Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

Event Horizon · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
I can prove Evolution false if you listen to the evidence. Evolution says there is about a gazillion transitional fossils,

Actually, the theory itself says nothing about fossils, except in your mind.

yet it is easier to SAY something's a TF than to actually have one.

I don't know what "TF" is, so I'll just say that we have many, many transitional fossils. We are lucky to have as many as we do.

Take reptiles to birds. You need different lungs, different bones, basically the whole STRUCTURE needs to be different. This fact alone should prove Evolution a dud.

Evolution is the process of change, so why exactly do you say it's a dud when evolution is used to explain a change? Just because you can't explain it Nova, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Novaknight1 · Feb 8, 2005

"We've been doing that, and answered every "challenge" you've put up so far. How about actually trying one that addresses what evolution actually is?"

Because Evolution has 6 meanings: Cosmic, Elemental, Stellar, Organic, Macro, and micro. If Evolving is such a fact, why does it have 6 meanings, and with the current definition, you can just switch meanings. Hardly science.

How exactly does evolution depend on man's opinion?

Evolution doesn't depend on man's opinion, but it says man's opinion determines right and wrong because there is no Lawgiver.

Ignoring the fact that this statement FLATLY contradicts your previous one, I would just like to point out that both gravity and elevtricity are MINDLESS, PURPOSELESS PROCESSES... so why should evolution be any different?

But gravity and electricity operate in a specified way. Evolution can occur to improve a species or make it worse.

And all this time I thought Jesus was the foundation of the Bible... when did you become such a master theologian?

Well, since Jesus referred to Genesis 25 times, He staked His reputation on Genesis because God wouldn't refer to Genesis AT ALL unless He wanted it to be interpreted literally. So Jesus's Deity is at stake, every book of the Bible refering to Genesis is at stake, and Genesis is at stake. Must be a pretty important topic, IMO.

Novaknight1 · Feb 8, 2005

"We've been doing that, and answered every "challenge" you've put up so far. How about actually trying one that addresses what evolution actually is?"

Because Evolution has 6 meanings: Cosmic, Elemental, Stellar, Organic, Macro, and micro. If Evolving is such a fact, why does it have 6 meanings, and with the current definition, you can just switch meanings. Hardly science.

How exactly does evolution depend on man's opinion?

Evolution doesn't depend on man's opinion, but it says man's opinion determines right and wrong because there is no Lawgiver.

Ignoring the fact that this statement FLATLY contradicts your previous one, I would just like to point out that both gravity and elevtricity are MINDLESS, PURPOSELESS PROCESSES... so why should evolution be any different?

But gravity and electricity operate in a specified way. Evolution can occur to improve a species or make it worse.

And all this time I thought Jesus was the foundation of the Bible... when did you become such a master theologian?

Well, since Jesus referred to Genesis 25 times, He staked His reputation on Genesis because God wouldn't refer to Genesis AT ALL unless He wanted it to be interpreted literally. So Jesus's Deity is at stake, every book of the Bible refering to Genesis is at stake, and Genesis is at stake. Must be a pretty important topic, IMO.

Btw, out of all the atheists I know of, all of them believe Evolution.

Event Horizon · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/srjulyan/evolutionj.htm

Nova, I only had to look at the first sentence under evolution to know the author doesn't know what evolution is. Here's a hint: It isn't blind chance.

Event Horizon · Feb 8, 2005

Nova, please, I ask this as a personal favor and in all seriousness. Take a high school biology course. Please.

Novaknight1 · Feb 8, 2005

"Actually, the theory itself says nothing about fossils, except in your mind."

If we don't have transitional fossils, Evolution wouldn't be called scientific.

"I don't know what "TF" is, so I'll just say that we have many, many transitional fossils. We are lucky to have as many as we do."

Uh, no we don't. Transitional fossils are a little hard to come by. Btw, when you say we are lucky to have as many as we do, could you also mean a little dishonest? Many transitional fossils were proven to be hoaxes.

"Evolution is the process of change, so why exactly do you say it's a dud when evolution is used to explain a change? Just because you can't explain it Nova, doesn't mean it can't happen."

Macroevolution is the process of changing into another species. You just switched the meaning to microevolution. Besides, most scientists aren't sure what mechanism causes macroevolution. Besides, hasn't science been wrong before? So how can you be so confident in Evolution? Even facts may not be permanent. So why is Evolution permanent?

Novaknight1 · Feb 8, 2005

Event Horizon said:
Nova, please, I ask this as a personal favor and in all seriousness. Take a high school biology course. Please.

Why? Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT. It defies the 3LoT, saying as matter's temperature approaches absolute 0, all processes cease. Does it go with ANY laws of the universe? The laws are constant. The theory must change.

Ampoliros · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
The only scientific definition of evolution is microevolution.

Actually, all of them are related to Creation or Evolution, as is this one.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/srjulyan/evolutionj.htm

Which makes more sense, to believe that the human body is the product of chance despite overwhelming complexity or a Designer?

Whether it makes sense to you or I is irrelevant. Time dilation - a weird effect on time that occurs when travelling near the speed of light - didn't make sense to me when I heard about it. I'm sure if you asked a good deal of people on the street about what makes sense to them as they approach the speed of light, I'm sure a rare few would say that time slowing down would make sense. I mean, time doesnt seem to change whether I drive at 200mph or if I'm standing still, but the fact is that it does - you can test it. My lack (or other's lack) of understanding of it, however, doesn't make it untrue. Of course, the same applies with evolution.

And, as an added argument - evolution does not say humans are a product of 'chance'. Mutation is chance. Natural selection is not chance. The two together (evolution) is therefore also not chance.

Event Horizon · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
If we don't have transitional fossils, Evolution wouldn't be called scientific.

Only if you ignore the other evidence. I sure you have the link.

Uh, no we don't. Transitional fossils are a little hard to come by. Btw, when you say we are lucky to have as many as we do, could you also mean a little dishonest? Many transitional fossils were proven to be hoaxes.

Name 5 hoaxes. All fossils found are transitionals.

Macroevolution is the process of changing into another species. You just switched the meaning to microevolution.

Micro and macro evolution are just measurments of the same process. There is but one definition, unless you define them separetly. Speciation occurs as a results a many micros over many generations. Once enough mutations have occured in the right places, then a new species is born.

Besides, most scientists aren't sure what mechanism causes macroevolution.

Which scientists? Maybe you should look at this site for beginners to look at some of the mechanisms: http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html

Besides, hasn't science been wrong before?

Science changes with evidence. For all we know, gravity could be refuted tomorrow, but until the refuting evidence arrives, I'll continue to believe in it.

So how can you be so confident in Evolution? Even facts may not be permanent. So why is Evolution permanent?

I'm as confident in evolution as I am with any other theory like germ theory or the theory of plate tectonics. I'm not that confident, even with the astounding amounts of evidence for them. Any theory can be shown wrong. As soon as I see the evidence to the contrary, I'll edit my beliefs.

Event Horizon · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
Why? Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT. It defies the 3LoT, saying as matter's temperature approaches absolute 0, all processes cease. Does it go with ANY laws of the universe? The laws are constant. The theory must change.

You just answered your own question.

Ampoliros · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
Why? Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT.

State the second law of thermodynamics and state why it goes against evolution. Invoking some sort of vague complexity argument would not be a valid argument.

Do you seriously think no biologist for the past 150 years has taken a course in physics and studied the second law of thermodynamics? Do you think that if the laws of thermodynamics truely conflicted with evolution that any number of physicists and chemists would have explained to biologists about why evolution contradicts the second law? Its not as if these fields never interact. It boggles me that creationists can make these statements as if biologists are brutally ignorant of the workings of the universe around them.

It defies the 3LoT, saying as matter's temperature approaches absolute 0, all processes cease. Does it go with ANY laws of the universe? The laws are constant. The theory must change.

How, in any manner of speaking, does the third law of thermodynamics apply here? Last I checked, there isn't much at absolute zero that is alive...

Mechanical Bliss · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
Because Evolution has 6 meanings: Cosmic, Elemental, Stellar, Organic, Macro, and micro. If Evolving is such a fact, why does it have 6 meanings, and with the current definition, you can just switch meanings. Hardly science.

Novaknight1 said:
Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT

Why do you continue to repeat arguments that you have used in the past, which have been directly addressed and refuted multiple times?

You realize that this implies that you either don't read anyone's posts or are being deliberately dishonest in your participation here, don't you? And as a result, people will be much less likely to take you seriously? It's clear that you are repeating things that you already know are false one way or another. I suggest you stop this practice if you want to be taken seriously.

DJ_Ghost · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
And what part is false about Evolution saying nature is all there is and being a religion?

Both bits, and since you have been told that before, many times we must assume you know so by now.

Ghost

DJ_Ghost · Feb 8, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
You should be aware of the evidence FOR AND AGAINST Evolution before you can rightly decide whether or not it really is science.

That's is true you do.

Novaknight1 said:
Now, if you are willing to do that, I can help you and give you evidence on both sides.

Your arrogance is astounding. I have shown time and time again I know more about the ToE and science than you do, and every argument I have seen you present is based on faulty science.

Novaknight1 said:
As to how Naziism and communism are related, both are based on the assumption that man's opinion determines right from wrong, as does Evolution.

Evolution does not talk about opinions or right and wrong at all.

Novaknight1 said:
Also, Evolution is A MINDLESS, PURPOSELESS PROCESS, the opposite of believing in God.

Evolution is not the opposite of believing in God, it can be perfectly compatible with it.

Novaknight1 said:
TEs have to compromise Genesis, the foundation of the Bible.

No we do not compromise it, we read is as allegorical, that is not the same.

Novaknight1 said:
Therefore, you are wrong when you say Evolution means there is no god.

Well I would be if I said that but I didnt, I made it perfectly clear that I believe in God and accept evolution, show me where I said Evolution means there is no God.

Ghost

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 8, 2005

NovaKnight1,
in 1616 Cardinal Bellarmine, who argued for the literal understanding of Joshua, wrote concerning his disagreement with Galileo:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

From Joshua 10:12,13:

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, «O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.» So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

The Bible says the Sun stopped not the Earth. In a historical report.

Do you believe that the Sun goes around the Earth every 24 hours?
If not, why not?
If so, would you be willing to get on a merry go round with a cup of steaming hot coffee filled to the brim, no top, and let me push you to see if the Earth will rotate about you and the merry go round?

MQTA · Feb 9, 2005

Mechanical Bliss said:
Why do you continue to repeat arguments that you have used in the past, which have been directly addressed and refuted multiple times?

You realize that this implies that you either don't read anyone's posts or are being deliberately dishonest in your participation here, don't you? And as a result, people will be much less likely to take you seriously? It's clear that you are repeating things that you already know are false one way or another. I suggest you stop this practice if you want to be taken seriously.

The if/then statement at the end perhaps is already decided.

I guess they're not PRATTs any more, they're PRAMTs or PRABTs by now!

Herman Hedning · Feb 9, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
Because Evolution has 6 meanings: Cosmic, Elemental, Stellar, Organic, Macro, and micro. If Evolving is such a fact, why does it have 6 meanings, and with the current definition, you can just switch meanings. Hardly science.

And from where did you get those six meanings? From Hovind or from an evolutionary biologist?

But gravity and electricity operate in a specified way. Evolution can occur to improve a species or make it worse.

I think you are confusing cause and effect here. Evolution also operates in a specified way. Electricity can power your computer (beneficial) or give you a shock (detrimental). Gravity can prevent you from flying out into space (beneficial) or cause you to break a leg when you fall off a cliff (detrimental). Cause and effect, Nova.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Feb 9, 2005

Nova saith:

Because Evolution has 6 meanings: Cosmic, Elemental, Stellar, Organic, Macro, and micro. If Evolving is such a fact, why does it have 6 meanings, and with the current definition, you can just switch meanings. Hardly science.

Hmm. I take it taxonomy's also a load of dingos kidneys* because tigers, lions, panthers and domestic moggies are all called cats. So if I talk about cat food I must be talking about zebras and gazelles as well as Kite-Kat.

In an ideal world, Nova would then go to an encylopaedia and find "Fallacy of Equivocation", but since he hasn't looked up "Second Law of Thermodynamics" yet, I'm not holding my breath.

It's the dishonesty that gets me. The reason Nova hasn't looked up the SLoT is he knows damned well it doesn't support his argument so the last thing he wants to have is a clear understanding of it. He prefers falsehood over truth.

*replaces original word which was censored out. Hey, even Bart Simpson can say the cr** word!

notto · Feb 9, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
Why? Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT. It defies the 3LoT, saying as matter's temperature approaches absolute 0, all processes cease. Does it go with ANY laws of the universe? The laws are constant. The theory must change.

I've asked you this before but you never answered.
Name one physical mechanism used the the theory of evolution that goes against the 2LoT.

Kripost · Feb 9, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
Why? Evolution goes against MANY laws of the universe, such as the 2LoT. It defies the 3LoT, saying as matter's temperature approaches absolute 0, all processes cease. Does it go with ANY laws of the universe? The laws are constant. The theory must change.

Can you please quote the formulae for the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and explain the symbols?

Regarding the 3rd law of thermodynamics, can you please show how is it contrary to evolution? As far as I understand, the nucleoplasm freezes at a temperature far above absolute zero.

Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

Event Horizon

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Event Horizon

Guest

Event Horizon

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm my own wireless hotspot

Event Horizon

Guest

Event Horizon

Guest

I'm my own wireless hotspot

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Trad Goth

Trad Goth

Senior Veteran

Irregular Member

Hiking is fun

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency